2011 Supreme(Guj) 341

2011 (3) GCD 2295 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave
Kutch Construction Industries & Rehabilitation Federation & Ors.
Versus
State of Gujarat & Anr.
Special Civil Application No. 6647 of 2008—Decided on 13/06/2011

Point in Issue :
Whether Final Annual Statement of Rates, 2008, prepared under the provisions of the Act and Rules thereunder is sustainable.

Headnote:Head Note :

       Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 — Section 31, Section 32-A Inserted by Gujarat Act 21 of 1982 and Sub-section (1) of Section 32-A by Gujarat Act 13 of 1994 Section 32-A(1) certain words inserted by Gujarat Act 19 of 2001 and Proviso to Sub-section (1) inserted by Act of Gujarat 18 of 2004, Sections 32-A(2) and 47(A) — Bombay Stamp (Determination of Market Value of Property) Rules, 1984 — Rules 3, 4, 7 and 8 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 19 and 21 — Final Annual Statement of Rates 2008 — Challenged as unconstitutional and ultra vires the provision of the Act and Rules made there under — Finding of — The issues raised in the matter are well settled by decision of two Full Bench and a larger Bench of the Court with regard interpretation of Sections 31, 32-A, 32 and Rules 3, 4, 7 and 8 of Rules and binding to this Court. Since the issues raised in this petition were also the subject matter of the cases decided there in — It has been held there in that valuation method and power of State Government to prepare Annual Statement of Rates is legal, valid and sustainable — It has also been held that the method of valuation of property can not be said to be unreasonable and arbitrary and invalid — The Bench has further held that the said procedure is scientific, reasonable and can not be termed as irrational by any standard.

       Held :

       That the relevant paragraphs reproduced herein above of two Full Benches and one Larger Bench of this Court would go to show that contentions raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners as recorded in Paragraphs 2 to 3.5 of this judgment do not require any detail scrutiny inasmuch as issue about valuation method and power of State Government to prepare Annual Statement of Rates (ASR) – “Jantri” is upheld by the First Full Bench and the said Bench has in detail examined provisions of Section 32A (1) (2) (3) and rules namely Rules 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the Rules and in no uncertain terms held in Para 31 that the method of valuation of property cannot be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary and invalid and contentions was raised without referring to statutory provisions prescribed under the Act and Rules. The Bench further held that the said procedure is scientific, reasonable and cannot be termed as irrational by any standard. Besides, the First Full Bench after examining the Rules governing the determination of the market value in Para 37 concluded the procedure prescribed under Section 32A read with Rules 2 to 8 of the Rules provides in giving adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned person at different stages and the consideration before the Registering Officer is mainly based upon the minimum market value determined for different properties in different localities as per the guidelines issued by the Valuation Organization Department and the principle laid down in Rule 8 for determination of market value are exhaustive, reasonable and scientific and, therefore, with the above declaration of law about power of the Government to prepare ASR and procedure adopted by the authority being fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary and in the fact of this case [Para 11]

       That the contentions about usage of the above Jantri by the registering officer while applying the mind so as to form an opinion and reason to believe about setting forth true market value of the property being vitiated by compulsive use of Jantri is also misconceived. The Competent Officer of the Department/authority in the affidavit-in-reply have stated in no uncertain terms about no such compulsion or pressure being exerted by registering authority and upon presentation of instrument to be stamped ASR is used as a guide for comparing the proper market value and learned Advocate General emphasized and reiterated that provisions of Section 32A and Rules 3, 4 and 8 are not given go by at any stage under any circumstances and in case of registering officer forms an opinion and has reason to believe about insufficiency of the stamp duty, such registering officer has to refer such instrument/document to the Collector as per Rule 3(4) and after following procedure laid down in Rule 4 and factors provided in Rule 8 about principles to be taken into consideration for determination of market value by the Collector the decision is taken after opportunity is given to affected person and, therefore, the contention about compulsory usage of ASR is ill founded and it is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and argument deserves to be rejected. [Para 12]

       With regard to wide and effective publication of draft Jantri and lack of opportunity to the objectors in the facts of this case, it is factually incorrect and draft Jantri was infact published in daily newspapers having sufficient circulation in the District of Kutch namely ‘Divya Bhaskar’ and ‘Sandesh’ two daily vernacular newspapers of the State and in addition to above it was also displayed at various offices of the authority in the District along with website, where 75% of the population of the State has access to the computer with connectivity in as many as 13,000 village panchayat out of 18,000 village panchayat in the State. The above aspect would go to show that proper and wide publicity is given to draft Jantri so as to invite objections and 30 days were given to lodge objections and as noticed earlier objections raised in 2464 cases were in cyclostyle formate and inspite of the above fact the authority had considered the same and, therefore, the contentions raised on lack of wide publicity and opportunity not given to the petitioners is also misconceived and the above exercise of preparation of ASR is a part of effective implementation of fiscal enactment like Bombay Stamp Act which do not envisage any further elaborate exercise of inviting objections of prescribing stamp duties for various instruments. The procedure as above followed by the authority reveal fair and transparent process of decision making viz. Preparation and publication of ASR 2008. The above exercise is administrative exercise and within the competence of the State authority cannot be said to be in any manner unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory or contrary to law or inconsistent or incompatible and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, Act or Rules. [Para 17]

       Law Laid Down :

       (i) Rule 3(2) of Rules is directory and non-compliance thereof will not vitiate the proceedings — (ii) Registering Officer under Sub-section (1) of Section 32-A of the Act can exercise powers beyond two years on facts justifying delay.